April 28, 2008

... and pushes his 23d book. Much as I'm outraged by his Hamas trip, I'm also outraged that he's published 23 books. Who does he think he is, that he has 23 books in him? This one is about his mother, just in time for Mother's Day. Get out your wallets, please, for the smiling fuzzball of an ex-President.

He's made millions as an author. The Wall St. J ran a long piece on that a few years ago.

I think the story was he actually couldn't get published. No one in Noo Yawk would pick him up! A former President!

He hired someone to teach him how to write poetry, and the book became a best seller. Now he can do no wrong, not with a mom book coming out for Mother's Day! He's probably got other short tomes lined up whose content is linked to specific selling periods such as Valentine's Day and Christmas.

Everyone seems enthralled with this amateur musician stuff. As the book ideas whittle off, perhaps he could switch to albums. "Christmas Carols with Carter", "Jazzing with Jimmy", or "JC Praises JC: Gospels Greatest Hits Sung by an American President."

That doesn't mean what it used to. Esp sinced one candidate was chosen merely to poke Bush in the eye.

It was my poor attempt at sarcasm. The title of the book - The Personal Beliefs of Jimmy Carter: Winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize - authored by him along with the jacket picture, the antithesis of humble, made me want to barf.

FLS, you are wrong about that. I'm only able to be appropriately nice like that for the length of a blog post. Don't think because I can do this, I can do something else. A book by me about my father would probably not be a nice present for your dad on Father's Day. And that's assuming I could get it together to write something long, instead of blogging, which is so precisely where my abilities and disabilities intersect.

His secret in cracking the famously cutthroat and unpredictable publishing industry: He is a versatile writer and a relentless marketer. He has even figured out the best way to handle book signings, using the shorthand signature "J Carter" -- an economy that saves him several seconds per customer. All this has enabled him to expand far beyond his liberal base, striking a chord with readers disappointed in his presidency.

....But [no other ex president] committed themselves to book-writing with the intensity of Mr. Carter. There are now nearly 1.4 million hardcover books in print of his last three titles, including 750,000 hardcover copies of "Our Endangered Values."

....Although a spokesman for CBS Corp.'s Simon & Schuster declined to comment on the book's financial results, one industry veteran suggests that Mr. Carter and his publisher each stand to earn more than $2.5 million on hardcover sales and ancillary rights in the first year.

Like other successful scribes in today's publishing world, Mr. Carter has learned how to play the game. Book retailers love him, in part because he works so hard at book signings and understands the "retail politics" of the publishing business. Disdainful of "handlers," the former president is all business and insists on sticking to a tight schedule. Once, he almost left a late-running publicist behind in a store.

As President, he was awful, in my mind undoubtably the worst of the modern era (I define the modern era as the TV/Atomic age, in otherwords all the Presidents since FDR), but The Ex President So Beneath Contempt That I Shan't Utter or Type His Name has proven again and again in his actions since leaving the Presidency, that as bad as he was as an Executive, he's been far, far worse as an Ex-Executive.

Nixon had the decency to be humble in disgrace, even Clinton has been occasionally dignified, but He That Shan't Be Named is just an utter loon and embarrassment to this country.

Wow, you really don't know much about presidential history in the 20th century

Cyrus

My comment was my opinion based upon being unfortunate to have lived through the Carter years. Needless to say among my friends and family that assessment seems to hold up well. But I'm quite aware of some other nitwits who got elected although I'm not nearly old enough to remember the Harding days or Hoover's economic blundering.

Actually, one of his books is quite good. "An Hour Before Daylight" is an interesting story of Jimmy's childhood years. It gives you a good insight in how he became what he is. And with used copies selling at $0.01 on Amazon.com, it is well worth the price. Just my two cents worth!

How awful was Carter as president? I was in junior high school in the late 70s. I knew at the time Carter was one huge screw-up. You have to be really one colossally bad chief executive for a 7th grader to notice it.

There are two 20th century Presidents who routinely rank below Carter on academic surveys: Nixon and Harding. So it would be more accurate to say that he's the third-worst President of the 20th century.

Of course, that's a rating of overall quality, not of "uselessness". He's pretty clearly more useless than Nixon, who at least accomplished SOME positive things along with all the bad stuff.

to the list of presidents who frequently rank below Carter in the silly surveys

So Cyrus, if these academic surveys are so silly, what exactly is your benchmark for judging presidential quality? You were quite quick to question my knowledge of 20th century presidents but clearly you suffer from the same bias I do.

So Cyrus, if these academic surveys are so silly, what exactly is your benchmark for judging presidential quality?

I think you're a little confused. My comment about "silly surveys" followed Revenant's post and referenced the academic surveys that he mentions.

My earlier reply to you refers to lists produced by individual political scientists, economists, historians, etc... I find the lists produced by individual scholars far more useful than "surveys," as the methodology, the standards applied, and the bias in play are readily evident in the work of an individual but rarely so in the case of a survey.

BTW, I think it's very unlikely that I suffer from the same bias you do.

Carter was a terrible president. I voted for him (once) then graduated from college into the Carter era of gas station lines, 13% inflation, 17% mortgage rates, failed Iran prisoner rescue missions and "malaise". Plus, he was attacked by a swimming rabbit one day while fishing on a pond in Georgia.

Hoover may have been a worse president than Carter, but no president since Carter has come anywhere near his ineptitude. Or his sniveling sanctimony.

I have never trusted a democrat on economic matters since casting that vote for Carter.

Are these surveys which you then hold as credible as they support your biased contention or one of those other 'silly surveys' you referred to?

The problem is not the "credibility" of the surveys or the "sense" of the participants as you suggest. The problem with the surveys is that the survey methodology, the nature of the standards applied and the bias of the participants is generally concealed. This makes analyzing and understanding survey results much more difficult if not impossible and diminishes their relative merit.

To be clear, then, it is the gross survey methodology that I deem silly; that doesn't mean the results are without value or that survey participants are not credible. Therefore, your claim that "no one with any amount of credibility or sense would rate [Poppy Bush] as one of the worst" of the twentieth century is simply wrong based on evidence at hand.

I have never trusted a democrat on economic matters since casting that vote for Carter.

You ought to refer to the Forbes study that I cited earlier. Of the 10 post-WWII presidents (not including Dubya), the worst three national economic performances belong to Republicans (Poppy Bush, Eisenhower and Nixon) and the best three national economic performances belong to Democrats (Clinton, Johnson and Kennedy).

Therefore, your claim that "no one with any amount of credibility or sense would rate [Poppy Bush] as one of the worst" of the twentieth century is simply wrong based on evidence at hand.

Well the evidence that you supplied was a Forbes analysis purely based upon economic conditions. Ok fine. So tell me how Carter ranks in terms of economic conditions from 1976-1980 as well as an utter feckless foreign policy and an inability to rouse the nation.

To prove the point Reagan destroyed him in 1980 pretty much evidences how worthless he was as an incumbent. Reagan's all but complete sweep in 1984 pretty much confirms that everyone saw a Carter repeat with Mondale.

So while Carter may not be on the bottom of your list, the evidence had hand says it should.

It makes for interesting reading. I especially like this part re: JFK/LBJ.

"The Vietnam War had the biggest impact [of any single factor under Johnson] both for good and for ill," says Charles Schultze, an economist at the Brookings Institution who worked in the Johnson and Carter administrations. Schultze says the Kennedy/Johnson tax cut helped the economy continue to grow in 1965 and 1966. But the failure to finance the war led to a surge in inflation that continued under Nixon. Despite these problems, the JFK/LBJ era, viewed as a whole, was the best of times.

The best of times indeed. Except of course for those that were sent to Vietnam. I guess if one is trying to prove a specific point, JFK/LBJs great economic successes outweigh their disastorous handling of the Vietnam war in terms of 'good presidents'.

We sure are collecting ex-presidents fast, and they embarrass themselves regularly. Get the hook already.

Everyone else has learned that Carter's "dialogue" policy, which in Tehran consisted of him whining and them telling him to go to hell, resulted in state-sponsored global terrorism. But hey, Hamas was elected, so it's all good. So was Hitler.

Jimmy Carter is one of my personal heroes. He acts on his beliefs. He was too good, really, to be a good president. He's taken on important issues through his Center and his work with Habitat for Humanity. I don't agree with all his actions, but I believe they are principled.

I have read of few of his books and found them quite charming. I don't know about the other 19 or so. But why would anyone criticize the fact that he wrote and published them? You are not obligated to buy them or read them.

I don't agree with all his actions, but I believe they are principled.

Thats great, but a leadership role requires more. Consider that Chamberlain was likewise "principled", but his actions neutered the 4th largest army on the continent and doomed 44 million, including 11 million Holocaust victims.

FLS - "Ann, it is just a question of prioritization and time management. Start writing now, and you'll get at least ten books in by the time you're eligible for Social Security."

And Carter having 3 ghost writers on his staff.

Nixon only wrote 7 books, but they were substantial books he mostly did on his own.

Pity Reagan didn't write any except maybe ghostwritten one as a GE flack, but we found a vast trove of Reagan's letters and his diary that flesh out Reagan and his impact more than Dhimmi Carters 23 books put together.

There are two 20th century Presidents who routinely rank below Carter on academic surveys: Nixon and Harding. So it would be more accurate to say that he's the third-worst President of the 20th century.

Historians have population that is far more hard Left than the General population. That is more obvious when you look at who they rank as America's "greatest" Presidents and non-Presidents. That their Presidential rankings glorified JFK and Wilson for decades out of proportion to their positive impact. That their list of 100 Greatest "non-Presidents" includes a multiculti plethora of marginal black and female figures while ignoring some of the most important white males in politics, science, industry, military, and culture.

Truth is Nixon's "illegal acts"pale in comparison to the stuff we now know FDR, Truman (stewed in Pendergrass Gang corruption most his life), JFK, and LBJ did. Getting past Watergate, Nixon was the most consequential President of the 20th Century next to FDR. When the "historian community" is perhaps more ideologically balanced, the sum of the great, lasting achievements of Nixon's brilliance may raise him to "near Great" but flawed, status. Akin to John Adams, Jackson, and LBJ.Harding also suffers with the historian's obsession with scandal. He was a very popular President in his time, but had several major scandals caused by high-ranking Corrupticans of the times that he didn't benefit from monetarily, but didn't try and stop. That even liberal historians rank Carter at or in near-bottom is telling. Now Carter will have some allies that will tell him he was perhaps more competent than Dubya, maybe even Buchanan...some solace in his last years..

23 books and none worth reading. Nixon at least had serious and substantial books, definitely worth reading. The good old Carter days, stabbing the Shah in the back and being the midwife to Khomenei. 30 years on are we are still paying. Thanks for nothing.How many oldsters here remember the good old days when the democrats last had a white house and congress for 4 years? Remember gas on odd and even days? 8% unemployment? When 12% was a great rate on a mortgage? I remember getting 15% on my Eurodollar CD's and selling gold at $650 an oz, isn't that nearly $3500 in todays money? I'm sure the rich liberals look back fondly at the income tax top rate of 70%. And lets not forget liver lips in his sweater preaching to us about malaise and setting the thermostats at 68f for those freezing up north (if you were lucky enough to get fuel oil)all the while enjoying high inflation. Yes those were the days. You would think if he had any sense of shame he would crawl under a rock and would never be seen again instead he is such a craven piece if crap that accepts a prize that was conditional on him pissing on his country.

Funny thing the left hates Bush for among other things of for financing the war the same way Johnson did Vietnam. Claims that Bush and Chenney are crooks but ignores the Kennedy's and Johnson. Blames Hoover for the depression but praise Obama and Hilary for wanting to implement those very same policies. Claims Nixon was evil beyond redemption all the while ignoring that FDR was the closest this country has ever come to being fascist. FDR campaigned on cutting taxes and business regulation to stem the depression and instead raised taxes and tried to turn this country into a Mussolini style fascist state. FDR's saving grace was the war, which he managed to bungle up enough as it is causing us decades of grief. Wilkie and Dewey were both better suited than FDR to be war time presidents. His treatment of Truman was shocking. Thank God he did not die while Henry Wallace was Vice President. Carter was the worst president since FDR and FDR was the worst president since Wilson who was the worst president since Andrew Johnson. McCain admits to not knowing much about economics unlike Obama and Clinton who don't know enough on the subject to even know they don't know much on the subject. In other words, Carter clones.

Historians have population that is far more hard Left than the General population.

Sure, but even the Wall Street Journal's surveys, which carefully selected a balanced ideological mix, still ranked Harding and Nixon as worse than Carter. There are just too many horrible things that Nixon did to screw up the country, and that's *before* you stop to consider the Watergate debacle. The disastrous economy of the 70s was largely his doing.

I tend to agree with both assessments: That the dirty tricks Nixon was disgraced over were trivial compared to other things done in the past; and that his achievements in office were great and terrible. ("Great" meaning "large or immense"/we use it in the pejorative sense.)

I do think Nixon did plenty way worse than he resigned over.

But I would also note that he was a leftist, as apparently everyone was in the '60s and '70s.

Well the evidence that you supplied was a Forbes analysis purely based upon economic conditions...

Wrong again! I didn't cite the Forbes analysis for the purpose of disproving your claim that "no one with any amount of credibility or sense would rate [Poppy Bush] as one of the worst" presidents of the twentieth century. The Forbes analysis is not a rating of general presidential performance but rather a ranking of economic performance during post-WWII presidencies. I'm sorry you were confused about the relevance of the Forbes analysis in my comments.

However, the broad surveys to which Revenant refers frequently list Poppy Bush as one of the worst presidents of the twentieth century. Since the people involved in these analyses are not generally regarded as lacking credibility and sense, your claim is proven wrong.

Coolidge, Hoover, and Ford show up now and then. Bush, almost never. Nixon and Harding are the only 20th century Presidents reliably ranked below Carter.

The results of 12 "scholar surveys" of presidential performance are listed here. The oldest dates from 1948 and the most recent from 2005. Using the 10 surveys that are recent enough to include Carter, we find the following:

So, based on this sample, Harding is consistently ranked as the worst president of the twentieth century. Coolidge and Nixon are usually ranked below Carter. Ford and Hoover are ranked below Carter half of the time. Poppy Bush is sometimes ranked below Carter.

The Forbes analysis is not a rating of general presidential performance but rather a ranking of economic performance during post-WWII presidencies. I'm sorry you were confused about the relevance of the Forbes analysis in my comments

Wasn't confused Cyrus, I was merely pointing out the only named analysis you actually referred to prove your point that Bush was lower than Carter. If you want to cherry pick analysis of administration underachievements based upon individual criteria we could start listing a whole lot more.

In any event, any scholar with an ounce of brains thinks that Bush I's handling of the economy was worse than Carter then he/she is fairly clueless. Either they didn't live during the Carter administration or is a complete syncophant.

I was merely pointing out the only named analysis you actually referred to prove your point that Bush was lower than Carter.

You are completely confused. I didn't use the Forbes analysis to prove my point. The analysis was mentioned for a different reason.

Again, I used the survey results (mentioned by Revenant and cited by me elsewhere) to prove my point. Since I've explained that fact previously, I'm surprised that you are still confused. However, if you reread my posts, your misunderstanding should be remedied.

[A]ny scholar with an ounce of brains thinks that Bush I's handling of the economy was worse than Carter then he/she is fairly clueless.

There are scholars who believe that Carter's handling of the economy was better than Poppy Bush's. There is no evidence that they are incompetent. They are simply basing their opinion on economic data and analysis. You're not obliged to agree with them, of course, but they aren't clueless. However, if you want to make your case, please do. I'd be interested to see the economic analysis that supports your opinion.

Blake - But I would also note that (Nixon) was a leftist, as apparently everyone was in the '60s and '70s.

Nixon was a progressive and basically a moderate who wanted a range of changes and mostly got them. No Republican since Nixon has been even close to Nixon's belief in reforms and ability to deliver:

Ending the Draft, creating the volunteer military. Detente. 1st Strategic Arms limitation treaties. Ushered in the NPTs by unilaterally abandoning chem, biological warfare , and making nuclear NPT a global goal.Created the EPA, EEOC. Accomplished 90% of school desegregation done in America in his Administration. Created NOAA and OSHA. Wound down Vietnam rapidly in his 1st few years and got a Peace Agreement that was abandoned post-Watergate. Started the heavy work and funding of CDC to fight major diseases globally - including cancer, polio..Credited with saving Israel in the '73 War by opening aid to them after France and Kissinger sought to abandon them rather than risk a confrontation with the Soviets.

His last great drives, derailed by Watergate - were to get affordable national health insurance to every American by a blend of employer mandates and subsidies for the working poor to buy their own. And a national energy plan to get us off ME Oil. Nixon's health care plan resembled national "Romneycare" 35 years before that past. Pity both of his last ideas were derailed by Watergate.

James MacGregor Burns observed of Nixon, "How can one evaluate such an idiosyncratic President, so brilliant and so morally lacking?

Yet we learn that Nixon kept a deep morality he saw as fulfilled if he could get the USA to those goals he set of global peace and national stability - but he learned from and admired such amoral men as Metternich, DeGaulle, Disraeli, Machiavelli, Churchill and FDR and their ability to achieve the greater good by taking moral shortcuts.

His epitaph is from the words of his 1st Inaugural Address:

The greatest honor history can bestow is the title of peacemaker.

Nixon went to his grave convinced he had created a far safer, stabler world than the one before his Presidency and later advice to other Presidents caused.

Carter is a tiny man set against Nixon, even with all Nixon's personality flaws that trapped him in petty, venal acts of smallness of character, at times.

Granted Bush I was nothing to write home about but no one with any amount of credibility or sense would rate him as one of the worst.

Then you countered with:

Considering that he is frequently ranked as one of the worst of the twentieth century in various surveys, you are clearly wrong.

By the way, in the Forbes analysis of Presidents and economic performance (since WWII and not including Dubya), Poppy Bush finished last. Carter finished sixth (out of 10).

Thus in terms of worst you stated he is 'frequently stated as worst in the 20th century' and then provided the Forbes analysis as how bad Bush I was in economic performance. Thus you cherry picked one study based on a single criteria to prove your point.

Carter was a disaster economically, domestically and in foreign policy. Again as an incumbent being thouroughly trounced in his re-election bid pretty much proves that point. Mondale's even more thorough ass-whipping in 1984 demonstrates no one wanted a repeat of the Carter years.

I'm not confused Cyrus. You simply keep moving the goalposts just like you always do in any discussion.

hoosier wrote: Thus in terms of worst you stated he is 'frequently stated as worst in the 20th century' and then provided the Forbes analysis as how bad Bush I was in economic performance. Thus you cherry picked one study based on a single criteria to prove your point.

Hoosier, give it up. If you can't even quote me accurately (ever heard of cut and paste?), I have no reason to believe you can follow my logic.

Once again, this is what I wrote as a response to your assertion:

Considering that he is frequently ranked as one of the worst of the twentieth century in various surveys, you are clearly wrong.

In other words, my conclusion that your claim is wrong is based on the "various surveys" to which Revenant referred.

In the next paragraph I offer an observation that follows my conclusion (i.e., the conclusion is not dependent on the observation):

By the way, in the Forbes analysis of Presidents and economic performance (since WWII and not including Dubya), Poppy Bush finished last. Carter finished sixth (out of 10).

The Forbes study is an analysis, not a survey. The Forbes study considers only the post-WWII period, not the entirety of the twentieth century. Why are you having so much trouble with this point? You've made an incorrect assumption that has led you astray. Please try to correct your error.

Thus you cherry picked one study based on a single criteria to prove your point.

Again you are entirely confused. Had you read the Forbes study, you would understand that the ranking of economic performance was NOT "based on a single criteria." Furthermore, there is no attempt by the study and no attempt by me to equate economic performance to presidential performance.

I'm not confused Cyrus.

Clearly you are confused, Hoosier. To be fair, your reading comprehension is usually very good. But you've got this one wrong and you can't seem to correct your misunderstanding. The fact that you can't even quote me correctly indicates that you're not at the top of your game. Too bad.

My comment at 7:31 Oh please. Granted Bush I was nothing to write home about but no one with any amount of credibility or sense would rate him as one of the worst.

Your reply at 7:41 where you quoted me above Considering that he is frequently ranked as one of the worst of the twentieth century in various surveys, you are clearly wrong.

By the way, in the Forbes analysis of Presidents and economic performance (since WWII and not including Dubya), Poppy Bush finished last. Carter finished sixth (out of 10).

Then you state various unnamed surveys and then toss the Forbes analysis. Honestly not sure what Reverent's post has to do with our discussion.

Once again, this is what I wrote as a response to your assertion:

Considering that he is frequently ranked as one of the worst of the twentieth century in various surveys, you are clearly wrong.

In other words, my conclusion that your claim is wrong is based on the "various surveys" to which Revenant referred.

Oh well then you need to certainly be a lot more clear. See when you quoted me rather than Reverent you can see how easily I could be confused.

Just for the record: Thus in terms of worst you stated he is 'frequently stated as worst in the 20th century' and then provided the Forbes analysis as how bad Bush I was in economic performance. Thus you cherry picked one study based on a single criteria to prove your point.

Hoosier, give it up. If you can't even quote me accurately (ever heard of cut and paste?), I have no reason to believe you can follow my logic.

Your comment at 7:41:Considering that he is frequently ranked as one of the worst of the twentieth century in various surveys, you are clearly wrong.

You managed to mention World War II and the Holocaust in a comment thread about Jimmy Carter. So, to be accurate, you made a comparison (in this case, to Chamberlain) that specifically relied on mention of Nazis. Godwin's Law strikes again!

Usually you're sharper than this, Fen. To make matters worse, you're now appealing for support from someone who can't quote properly. It's not a good start to the week for you, Fen.

Thats great, but a leadership role requires more. Consider that Chamberlain was likewise "principled", but his actions neutered the 4th largest army on the continent and doomed 44 million, including 11 million Holocaust victims.

Having "good intentions" is not enough.

Carter will go down in history as the worst former president.

Point out where I "made a comparison...that specifically relied on mention of Nazis"...

To make matters worse, you're now appealing for support from someone -

I'm not appealing for support from Hoosier. I'm warning him off. I'm advising him that his time would be better spent trimming his nose hair.

Nice try Fen, but your dodge won't work. This comment thread is about Carter. You took the opportunity in your response to draw a bizarre comparison involving WWII, the Holocaust and the Nazis. Godwin's Law applies. I'm sorry that you don't have the ability to understand this, but it doesn't change the facts.

By the way, since somewhere between 95% and 100% of what you post is wrong or wrongheaded, and I only correct about 1 out of 50 of your inaccurate comments, you should be grateful for my restraint. In fact, you should thank me. In this case, I'll regard your silence as a heartfelt thank you.

But for the record, you made a bizarre comparison involving Carter, Chamberlain and Nazi Germany. (Yes, Fen, you mentioned the Holocaust.) Not only was the comparison ridiculous, it satisfied the conditions of Godwin's Law.

President Jimmy Carter, Salman Rushdie, Martin Amis and Jools Holland, all competing for your attention. Where else but Hay-on-Wye, the sleepy town in the Welsh borders that becomes, for two weeks each year, one of the world's biggest celebrations of all things bookish?

Now into its 21st year, the 2008 Guardian Hay Festival promises to be as varied and vital an event as ever, squeezing some 477 events into the 11 days leading up to June 1.

Continuing the new tradition of inviting former US presidents, everyone's favourite retired world-leader turned peace activist Jimmy Carter will be talking about conflict resolution and human rights, heading a current affairs and politics listing that includes Cherie Booth on equality for women in the workplace, Howard Davies on whether capitalism is eating itself, and former chess world champion Gary Kasparov on the realities of Putin's Russia (Kasparov's predecessor Boris Spassky will also be appearing, but he'll be talking about chess)...